2008
Selekoa’s 51 records dated 2008, in date order, grouped by topic.
Selective: what the records hold, not a history of the year.
How this page is made
- Each record keeps the kind of date its source gives: an event, a publication, an announcement, an effective date, a revision, a signature, a snapshot, or the start or end of an interval. A snapshot is one dated report of a state.
- A record dated only to a month sits under that month, before the records dated to a day. A record dated only to the year sits under the year, before the months. No day or month is added.
- An announcement records what a party stated. It does not show that anything was done, built or paid for.
- Dates a party states for a year are listed apart, after the records: targets, deadlines and terms, and dates stated in passing, such as a reported start of operation. So is a record’s own date that falls after its sources were last checked, such as a law’s date of effect. A stated date given only in words, with no year, is not listed.
- Records with an unknown date are not listed. A record with an interval appears in the year it starts and in the year it ends, or once, with both dates, when both fall in one year.
- Each provision of a text is a record of its own. Provisions sharing a text and a date are shown here as one entry, with their number, and listed on the text’s page; a contested or unresolved one is listed here on its own. The counts on this page include each provision record.
- The page is generated from the records, with no selection or framing by an editor. Coverage is uneven across years and topics: a year or topic with few records may be one the records barely cover.
People 1 record
December 2008
Ideas & lineages 50 records
Dated to 2008 only
February 2008
· publication · dated to the day
The mailing-list message “Re: Investing in FAI research: now vs. later.” (2008-02-11) is sent under the name Eliezer S. Yudkowsky. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
The SL4 message “Re: Investing in FAI research: now vs. later.” (2008-02-11) contests Y07. Replying to Vladimir Nesov in a thread on investing in Friendly AI research now or later, he argues by analogy with AI-completeness that having an AI build Friendly AI from an English request is as hard as Friendly AI itself. Evidence ↗
June 2008
· publication · dated to the day
“The Rhythm of Disagreement” (2008-06-01) credits Eliezer Yudkowsky as its author. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
The post “The Rhythm of Disagreement” (2008-06-01) contests Y07. Recounting a suggestion to build a question-answering Oracle AI and ask it about Friendly AI, he argues that the Oracle would need its own goal system and a full meta-ethics, so it is no simpler than the Friendly AI it is meant to help with. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
The post “The Rhythm of Disagreement” (2008-06-01) contests Y15. Recounts his answer to Nick Bostrom's question whether an AI that only answers questions could be built and asked about Friendly AI. Argues that such an AI still needs goals and is not simpler than a Friendly AI. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
“Ghosts in the Machine” (2008-06-17) credits Eliezer Yudkowsky as its author. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
The post “Ghosts in the Machine” (2008-06-17) bears on Y03. Against the intuition that programming an AI is like instructing a human servant who interprets the instructions, he argues that nothing in the machine evaluates the code from outside it. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
“No Universally Compelling Arguments” (2008-06-26) credits Eliezer Yudkowsky as its author. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
The post “No Universally Compelling Arguments” (2008-06-26) contests Y02. After arguing that compulsion is a property of minds rather than of arguments, he names as a failure mode the hope that any AI will inevitably derive the right morality without it being programmed. Evidence ↗Yudkowsky, No Universally Compelling Arguments (2008) →Claim page →
August 2008
· publication · dated to the day
“Magical Categories” (2008-08-24) credits Eliezer Yudkowsky as its author. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
The post “Magical Categories” (2008-08-24) contests Y04. After showing that training data for 'smile' or 'good' fits many concepts, he names the error of expecting a short word to convey the whole intended category. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
“Dreams of Friendliness” (2008-08-31) credits Eliezer Yudkowsky as its author. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
The post “Dreams of Friendliness” (2008-08-31) contests Y15. Answers the proposal, stated in the preceding paragraph, that a question-answering AI 'wouldn't need any goals at all'. Argues that producing superintelligent answers requires powerful optimisation. Evidence ↗
September 2008
· publication · dated to the day
“That Tiny Note of Discord” (2008-09-23) credits Eliezer Yudkowsky as its author. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
The post “That Tiny Note of Discord” (2008-09-23) contests Y02. Recapping his 2008 autobiographical series, he states that his 1997 self believed any superintelligence would automatically do what is right, and names the flaw in that belief. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
The post “That Tiny Note of Discord” (2008-09-23) articulates Y30 in retrospect. In an autobiographical series, he reports his 1997 belief that any superintelligence would automatically do what was right, which supplies the default-good premise through a metaethical argument, and in the same paragraph identifies the flaw in that argument. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
“Fighting a Rearguard Action Against the Truth” (2008-09-24) credits Eliezer Yudkowsky as its author. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
The post “Fighting a Rearguard Action Against the Truth” (2008-09-24) articulates Y22 in retrospect. His 2008 account of his earlier self states that the 1996–2000 aim was speed to any superintelligence, and his next paragraph supplies the premise: the assumption that movement toward superintelligence was 'a pure good without a hint of danger'. Evidence ↗Yudkowsky, Fighting a Rearguard Action Against the Truth (2008) →Claim page →
· publication · dated to the day
“Above-Average AI Scientists” (2008-09-28) credits Eliezer Yudkowsky as its author. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
The post “Above-Average AI Scientists” (2008-09-28) bears on Y28. Recalling a meeting with the funded head of a corporate AGI project who turned out to be a creationist, he says he stopped assuming that AGI researchers met the standard the problem required. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
“The Magnitude of His Own Folly” (2008-09-30) credits Eliezer Yudkowsky as its author. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
The post “The Magnitude of His Own Folly” (2008-09-30) contests Y22. Explicitly rejects his earlier full-speed strategy. He says his childhood technophilia broke when he understood that a failed superintelligence project could kill everyone, however good the arguments for proceeding. Evidence ↗Yudkowsky, The Magnitude of His Own Folly (2008) →Claim page →
November 2008
· publication · dated to the day
Hanson, “Friendliness Factors” (2008-11-16), in “The Hanson-Yudkowsky AI-Foom Debate”, articulates E04. Hanson lists competition factors (info leaks, shared standards, anti-trust, sharing deals) that affect how far a winner leads. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
Hanson, “Setting the Stage” (2008-11-18), in “The Hanson-Yudkowsky AI-Foom Debate”, bears on E01. Hanson summarises points of agreement and disagreement with Yudkowsky at the start of the debate. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
Hanson, “Setting the Stage” (2008-11-18), in “The Hanson-Yudkowsky AI-Foom Debate”, bears on E03. First item in Hanson's list of points on which he and Yudkowsky "seem to agree". Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
Hanson, “Setting the Stage” (2008-11-18), in “The Hanson-Yudkowsky AI-Foom Debate”, bears on E05. Hanson states that his position in the foom debate rests on growth economics. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
Hanson, “AI Go Foom” (2008-11-20), in “The Hanson-Yudkowsky AI-Foom Debate”, articulates E01. Hanson summarises Yudkowsky's argument "as best I can, so I can then respond". Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
Hanson, “Emulations Go Foom” (2008-11-22), in “The Hanson-Yudkowsky AI-Foom Debate”, bears on E04. Hanson's scenario of competing whole-brain-emulation ("bot") projects. Evidence ↗
December 2008
· publication · dated to the month
“What Core Argument?” (2008-12) credits Robin Hanson as its author. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the month
Hanson’s post summarises Yudkowsky’s scenario of a seed AI growing within roughly a week from unimportant to strong enough to take over the world, and rejects that growth rate as far beyond what most AI researchers, growth economists or other specialists would estimate. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the month
Hanson’s post summarises Yudkowsky’s scenario of a single AI growing within roughly a week from unimportant to strong enough to take over the world, and rejects that growth rate as far beyond what most AI researchers, growth economists or other specialists would estimate. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
“Recursive Self-Improvement” (2008-12-01) credits Eliezer Yudkowsky as its author. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
Yudkowsky, “Recursive Self-Improvement” (2008-12-01), in “The Hanson-Yudkowsky AI-Foom Debate”, articulates E01. Yudkowsky's statement of the claim Hanson contests; the post notes that Hanson "objected to the 'local' part". Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
Yudkowsky’s post of 2008-12-01 says recursion is what happens when you hand an AI the object-level problem of redesigning its own cognitive algorithms. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
Yudkowsky’s post of 2008-12-01 says that at some point AI development is likely to see a fast, local increase in capability, "AI go FOOM", and that fast means weeks or hours rather than years or decades. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
The post “Recursive Self-Improvement” (2008-12-01) contests Y10. In the Hanson–Yudkowsky FOOM debate, he argues that recursive self-improvement makes a moderate, human-paced trajectory unlikely: a smooth outcome would need diminishing returns tuned exactly right. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
“Hard Takeoff” (2008-12-02) credits Eliezer Yudkowsky as its author. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
Yudkowsky’s post of 2008-12-02 defines recursive self-improvement as an AI rewriting its own cognitive algorithms, which "closes the loop", and argues that it either peters out or goes FOOM. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
Yudkowsky’s post of 2008-12-02 calls recursive self-improvement the sharpest break with the past contributing to the notion of a "hard takeoff", also called "AI go FOOM". Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
Yudkowsky’s post of 2008-12-02 compresses its argument into the slogan that it would be really odd if Moore’s Law stayed exponential with the improving computers doing the research. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
The post “Hard Takeoff” (2008-12-02) contests Y11. Lists sources of discontinuity besides recursive self-improvement, here a hardware overhang: computers already far faster serially than neurons would be used for thinking once the algorithms are found. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
Hanson, “Friendly Projects vs. Products” (2008-12-05), in “The Hanson-Yudkowsky AI-Foom Debate”, articulates E04. Hanson separates "project friendliness" (how race winners treat losers) from "product friendliness" (whether creations rebel). Hanson qualifies his claim that developers have strong incentives to avoid rebellious creations. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
Hanson, “Wrapping Up” (2008-12-07), in “The Hanson-Yudkowsky AI-Foom Debate”, contests E01. Hanson's objection to Yudkowsky's "growth math"; he repeats it in "What Core Argument?" (10 December 2008). Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
Hanson, “Wrapping Up” (2008-12-07), in “The Hanson-Yudkowsky AI-Foom Debate”, bears on E03. Hanson argues that property-rights institutions protect humans in his preferred emulation scenario. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
Hanson, “Wrapping Up” (2008-12-07), in “The Hanson-Yudkowsky AI-Foom Debate”, articulates E04. Hanson proposes liability and insurance for AI developers as the institutional answer to the friendliness problem. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
Hanson, “Wrapping Up” (2008-12-07), in “The Hanson-Yudkowsky AI-Foom Debate”, bears on E04. Hanson on why Yudkowsky's concern feels urgent. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
Hanson, “What Core Argument?” (2008-12-10), in “The Hanson-Yudkowsky AI-Foom Debate”, bears on E05. Hanson contrasts Yudkowsky's foom (about sixty doublings in about a week) with specialist estimates. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
“What I Think, If Not Why” (2008-12-11) credits Eliezer Yudkowsky as its author. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
The post “What I Think, If Not Why” (2008-12-11) contests Y04. In a list of his positions written during the 2008 exchange with Robin Hanson, he states that verbal instructions of this kind cannot specify an AI's values. Evidence ↗